The “I never thought it was racist” argument is not an excuse for racism

This is the type of thinking Orange County, Calif. Republican Party member Marilyn Davenport displayd in her explanation of why she sent an e-mail with this attachment in it:

The e-mail was in reference to the Birthers’ claims that President Barack Obama can’t produce a birth certificate. The image justifies why Obama, according to the Birthes, isn’t an American.
Outraged and possibly not wanting the Orange County Republicans to appear tolerant of blatant racism, county GOP chairman Scott Baugh has called for Davenport to resign her elected position of the party’s central committee. Baugh, who said he received the e-mail from Davenport, told the Los Angeles Times in its April 17 story he replied to the e-mail and said it was “dripping with racism and is in very poor taste.”
More from the story:

According to an email Baugh sent to committee members Saturday, Davenport described the Obama photo as a “joke” and wanted to know who had leaked the email to the OC Weekly’s R. Scott Moxley, who broke the story. She called the leak “cowardly” and wrote, “Anyone brave enough to come forward?”

Reached at her home in Fullerton on Saturday, Davenport declined to comment. In an email to central committee colleagues, however, she described the controversy as “much to do about nothing” and vowed that she would not resign.

I’m sorry if my email offended anyone, I simply found it amusing regarding the character of Obama and all the questions surrounding his origin of birth,” she wrote. “In no way did I even consider the fact he’s half black when I sent out the email. In fact, the thought never entered my mind until one or two other people tried to make this about raceWe all know a double standard applies regarding this president. I received plenty of emails about George Bush that I didn’t particularly like, yet there was no ‘cry’ in the media about them.”

Talking Points Memo has the additional statements she made after her reference to Bush

One only has to go to Youtube or Google Images to see a plethora or lampooning videos and pictures of Obama, Bush and other politicians. That being said, I will NOT resign my central committee position over this matter that the average person knows and agrees is much to do about nothing. Again, for those select few who might be truly offended by viewing a copy of an email I sent to a select list of friends and acquaintances, unlike the liberal left when they do the same, I offer my sincere apologies to you–the email was not meant for you. For any of my friends or acquaintances who were the recipients of my email and were truly offended, please call me so I may offer a sincere verbal apology to you.

I should make this post a how not to apologize for one’s racist behavior, but that would be too easy. This woman clearly is indignant about her behavior and clearly refuses to see the light. Me thinks I should break it down for her.

First, Davenport isn’t sorry at all. She’s sorry if the e-mail offended anyone, NOT sorry for using poor, racist judgment. The “I’m sorry if [insert offense] offended anyone” is not an apology for the offender’s actions. It’s an apology to those they view as too sensitive to understand their joke or action, or in this case, too sensitive about race to understand the humor behind the e-mail. Her “much to do about nothing” comment is another red flag for her insistence that she did nothing wrong by sending the racist e-mail.

Davenport simply found the e-mail with the racist image “amusing.” Furthermore, she hides behind the fact that she did not even “consider” the president’s race when she sent the image.

This type of excuse and deflection is typical among those who like to use racist imagery in criticizing the president. These people, who mainly subscribe to the Tea Party ideology, like to excuse their behavior as not racist because race never crossed their mind. Since they didn’t think or know a racist photo or remark is racist, then it can’t be racist because they were ignorant to that notion.

I hate to break it to these poor, racist souls, but ignorance of racism is not an excuse or defense for racist behavior. It is not up to you, the racist offender, to decide what is or isn’t racist. It’s not up to you to say that just because you didn’t think about race, then it can’t be racist. The decision on whether your action is racist is not determined by you, the offender; it’s determined by the person or group you set out to offend and humiliate.

Davenport is well aware that photo is racist. Davenport was well aware that photo would cause a stir because of its racism. Davenport would like to feign ignorance of the monkey as a historically racist image used against African-Americans, but her use of the phrase “if my email offended anyone” is a dead giveaway to her knowledge about the image’s racist connotation.

This notion that there’s a double standard between this president and former president Bush is nothing short of the frustration Davenport and others like her feel because of their inability to use racist imagery without the media and activists calling them out on their behavior. They note these same images were used against Bush in the previous presidency, so using monkeys to emulate a black man should be fair game.

They would like to believe their racist images aren’t racist because: 1) their intent isn’t inherently racist; and 2) they can’t be racist because a majority white country elected a black president. White privilege allows these people the ability to turn the race card on or off whenever it’s convenient to them. White privilege allows these people the authority of throwing race bombs while hiding behind feigned ignorance of what they said, did, wrote or drew was indeed racist.

It’s high time these activists who desperately want to use racist imagery in place of Obama come to grips with their actions and behaviors as indeed racist and offensive. It’s time those who come to the defense of these images and e-mails take a step back and analyze why they may feel a sense of solidarity with these images and slogans. It’s time for people like Davenport who support the use of these images to come to grips with and own up to their own racism.

Posted in GOP, Orange County California, racism, Tea Party movement | Leave a comment

Kobe Bryant’s slur was anti-gay–and homophobic

I’m not sure what’s going on at TheRoot, but they’ve recently had quite a few people submit superficial, flawed commentary on top issues of the day. The most recent instance of this trend comes from David Kaufman, who criticizes the GLBTQ movement for lambasting Kobe Bryant after he called a referee a “fucking faggot” at Tuesday’s Los Angeles Lakers-San Antonio Spurs game.

Kaufman begins the commentary with the tired opinion some in the black community have expressed about the GLBTQ community’s “willingness…to take a brother down by any means necessary.”

Kaufman’s chief argument is this:

Although Bryant’s word choice is certainly unfortunate, equally worrisome is the near-instant racial — and racist — overtones now permeating this debate. At its core is the comparison of the word “faggot” with “nigger,” a comparison that has become emblematic of the LGBT movement’s unabashed co-option of the African-American struggle. In this case, reader comments on blog after blog repeatedly invoke the word “nigger” in their Kobe takedown as — in the words of Joe.My.God reader “beeblmeyer” – they “wonder how Mr. Bryant would feel if someone said, ‘Fucking nigger.’ “

The real wonder here is how folks could think there is anything to compare in the first place. Without a doubt, Bryant uttered the epithet in anger, but in a fit of homophobia? Not necessarily, at least until we know for certain whether referee Bennie Adams is gay.

Despite what gay, black ex-NBA player John Amaechi might have said in today’s USA Today, calling someone a “fucking nigger” has an entirely different historical meaning and context.

A black person is called a nigger precisely and exclusively because he is black. Period. And the core of the word’s offense — and racism — stems from this sheer conspicuousness. I’ve been called a nigger more than once, and there’s no doubt it was because of the color of my skin, not because I’d pissed someone off

We cannot necessarily say the same thing about Kobe’s — or perhaps anyone’s — use of “faggot.” Yes, the word is loaded with offense and has been a centuries-long tool of homophobes. But unless we’re certain Bryant expressly chose this word to specifically dis Adams’ sexuality, this charge of homophobia doesn’t hold up. Nor do the overwrought responses by GLAAD and HRC, who clearly have far more important enemies to battle than Kobe Bryant.

I can understand Kaufman’s concerns about Gay, Inc. co-opting the black civil rights struggle and the use of the word nigger to further advance their cause. Historically, Gay, Inc. (meaning the HRCs and the GLAADs) have been all but silent on the racism and white privilege rampant in the traditional GLBTQ movement. Any attempt by Gay, Inc. to align and compare themselves with the black civil rights movement is eyed as suspect by blacks and whites who’ve been emphatically dedicated to the cause of equality for GLBTQs of color.

However, Kaufman’s argument has a gaping flaw: calling someone a faggot is homophobic and is intended to offend the person subjected to the homophobic remarks. The use of the word faggot assumes the person (usually a male) is indeed gay and the slur is a slight to that person’s manhood. Kaufman’s suggestion that Bryant’s slur isn’t homophobic because we don’t know the sexuality of the referee is a slap in the face to any GLBTQ person who are subjected to the word faggot and other homophobic slurs on a routine basis.

The person being afflicted with the insults does not have to be gay in order for the words to be considered homophobic. The sexuality of the person at the receiving end of the remarks does not have to be a member of the GLBTQ community for them to be considered homophobic. It’s similar to people making racist jokes about a certain group of people. Even though a person who belongs to the group that’s the butt of the joke isn’t around to hear it, the joke–and the person who tells it–will still be considered racist.

Thankfully, Mychal Denzel Smith published an intelligent counter argument at TheRoot, which pretty much sums up why the word faggot is homophobic and offensive:

It’s a big part of the heterosexual-male bonding experience: In an effort to prove a sense of collective manhood, some heterosexual men trade homophobic barbs with one another, denounce and deride being gay and vehemently defend their own heterosexual credentials. It starts pretty early in the socialization process, with “gay” being used as a derogatory term on the playground before most even know what “gay” means, and eventually it makes its way into other spaces that tend to be perceived as havens for heterosexual manhood (e.g., locker rooms, basketball courts, rap music).

This is what Kobe Bryant was doing when he shouted ”fing faggot” at a referee during Tuesday’s Los Angeles Lakers-San Antonio Spurs game. Bryant says his use of the homophobic slur was not intended to offend anyone, which hardly seems plausible.

He is well aware that “faggot” is a homophobic slur, or else he would have felt no need to apologize for his comments; he would have claimed ignorance. Given that he was visibly angry when he blurted out the slur, any comment that he made toward the referee at that point was clearly intended to offend him. But the use of this particular word reveals something deeper.

It’s the belief that homosexuality is inherently inferior and an undesirable trait; therefore, to refer to someone with slurs usually reserved for gays is an attempt to belittle that person further.

It’s no question that Kobe Bryant *at least* has issues with the GLBTQ community. Otherwise, the words “fucking faggot” would not have come from his mouth in the fit of anger. Bryant’s use of the word faggot is a clear indication of his belief that homosexuality, like Smith said, is “inherently inferior and an undesirable trait.”

Unfortunately, the Bryant episode is just another example of the lethal grip homophobia has on our society and reminds activists of the long road ahead in garnering the respect and dignity for GLBTQ community.

Posted in GLBTQ rights, homophobia, Kobe Bryant | Leave a comment

So, I guess painting a five year old boy’s toenails pink is part of the liberal agenda

Who knew J. Crew would spark such an outrage when its president and creative director Jenna Lyons appeared in a catalog featuring her painting her five-year-old son’s toenails hot pink.

Well, apparently, the folks on the far-right fringe of society are appalled at Lyon’s decision to ignite confusion in her son by causing confusion in the little boy’s brain about which gender he should identify as.

Dr. Keith Ablow in an op-ed on Faux News (a safe haven for idiotic opinions) indicated that Lyons and other mothers need to set aside money for psychotherapy since their “innocent” game will indeed create unrest in their child’s mind.

This is a dramatic example of the way that our culture is being encouraged to abandon all trappings of gender identity—homogenizing males and females when the outcome of such “psychological sterilization” [my word choice] is not known. In our technology-driven world—fueled by Facebook, split-second Prozac prescriptions and lots of other assaults on genuine emotion and genuine relationships and actual consequences for behavior—almost nothing is now honored as real and true. 

Increasingly, this includes the truth that it is unwise to dress little girls like miniature adults (in halter tops and shorts emblazoned with PINK across the bottoms) and that it is unwise to encourage little boys to playact like little girls. If you have no problem with the J. Crew ad, how about one in which a little boy models a sundress? What could possibly be the problem with that?

Well, how about the fact that encouraging the choosing of gender identity, rather than suggesting our children become comfortable with the ones that they got at birth, can throw our species into real psychological turmoil—not to mention crowding operating rooms with procedures to grotesquely amputate body parts? Why not make race the next frontier? What would be so wrong with people deciding to tattoo themselves dark brown and claim African-American heritage? Why not bleach the skin of others so they can playact as Caucasians?

Why should we hold dear anything with which we were born? What’s the benefit of non-fiction over fiction? Well, the benefit is that non-fiction always wins, in the end. And to the extent that you take flights of fancy into masquerading through life, life will exact a psychological penalty.

The fallout is already being seen. Increasingly, girls show none of the reticence they once did to engage in early sexual relationships with boys. That may be a good thing from the standpoint of gender equality, but it could be a bad thing since there is no longer the same typically “feminine” brake on such behavior. Girls beat up other girls on YouTube. Young men primp and preen until their abdomens are washboards and their hair is perfect. And while that may seem like no big deal, it will be a very big deal if it turns out that neither gender is very comfortable anymore nurturing children above all else, and neither gender is motivated to rank creating a family above having great sex forever and neither gender is motivated toprotect the nation by marching into combat against other men and risking their lives.

So, apparently, “Dr.” Ablow predicts the fall of the human race if we do not accept and conform to the gender we are born with. Now that girls are beating each other up for the world to see and boys are more concerned about their physical appearance, the human race will sink into chaos because men no longer understand they are supposed to be the providers and protectors and women are supposed to be nurturing and devote her life to populating the earth with children.

The madness doesn’t stop there people. The Culture and Media Institute’s Erin Brownsaid the spread in the catalog “pushes transgendered child propaganda.”
Not only is Beckett likely to change his favorite color as early as tomorrow, Jenna’s indulgence (or encouragement) could make life hard for the boy in the future.J.CREW, known for its tasteful and modest clothing, apparently does not mind exploiting Beckett behind the façade of liberal, transgendered identity politics. One has to wonder what young boys in pink nail polish has to do with selling women’s clothing. Propaganda pushing the celebration of gender-confused boys wanting to dress and act like girls is a growing trend, seeping into mainstream culture. NBC’s Today show on January 3 featured a segment on the ’Princess Boy’ in which five-year-old Dyson Kilodavis was seen twirling in pink ballerina tutu, much to the delight of his mother Cheryl and host Meredith Vieira.
Good god. You’d think these parents were literally castrating their little boys and selling their genitals for profit…
I’m so sick of these right wing nut jobs complaining about the erosion of traditional gender roles in society due to a covert liberal agenda promoted by mainstream media, the so-called devious GLBTQ community and radical feminists. It’s comical to think that this mother, by painting her son’s toenails hot pink, would cause so much damage to his psyche and contribute to his future mental delusions about his gender.
What about parents who let their daughters dress up as a fire fighter or a police officer for Halloween? Would that cause girls to feel awkward and confused about their gender, thus creating a chaotic life full of cross-dressing and other so-called deviant behavior? What about parents who let their sons hold newborn babies and help give babies baths? Wouldn’t that set boys up for a gender identity crisis later on down the road?
This country is so wrapped up in strict gender roles to a point where it’s become detrimental to both men and women. We put so much pressure on parents to conform their son or daughter in to the pre-determined role set by whether one has a penis or whether one has a vagina. This rigid role not only creates anxiety in parents whose children don’t fit seamlessly into one gender role or another, but it also causes tension in children and teens as they have been indoctrinated to learn they will only become normal adults if they cave to the pressure of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman.Despite all the advances the U.S. has made in women not being expected to give up their career aspirations to  make way for her societal duties of producing a family and men not expected to serve as only sperm donors and his family’s sole breadwinner, why are we still hung up on gender roles when it comes to raising children? Why do we tell our children that, regardless of their gender, they have the world in the palms of their hands, yet force them to fit into our checklist based on their genitals?

Posted in gender, J. Crew, right-wing extremism, society | Leave a comment

Simpson: we have “homophobes” in our party

Best comment during the video: ”…But, I’m not sticking with people who are homophobic, anti-women, moral values—while you’re diddling your secretary while you’re giving a speech on moral values? Come on, get off of it.”

You can’t deny Alan Simpson has a point: the Republican Party, at least on its face, is filled with anti-woman, homophobic legislators who are hell-bent on promoting their destructive social agenda by stripping away a woman’s right to choose and further pushing TLGBQ people into third class citizenship. 

It’ll be interesting to see if more of the Republican old-timers stand up to the hateful, prejudice and misogynistic politicians and TEA Party activists that have taken over the GOP. 

Posted in abortion rights, GOP, homophobia, Tea Party movement | Leave a comment

theGrio’s commentary misses the mark

A tweet from theGrio (@theGrio on Twitter) got my attention as it featured Goldie Taylor’s take on Ashley Judd’s message about hip-hop acting as a conduit of rape culture. Intrigued, I clicked on the link and proceeded to read the article. Part of me was excited because I thought, “Finally, a commentary that will get it right for a change.”

Needless to say, I was thoroughly disappointed and frustrated with the hastily written commentary by the author. The headline of the article is misleading as readers will believe Taylor is about to tackle rape culture throughout hip-hop and rap songs and lyrics.

What the article does is go into Taylor’s love affair with the early days of rap and rehashes the tired and true debate about popular hip-hop and rap’s music and artists’ affects on the psychological development of young boys and girls. She goes into the same hypersexualized and misogynistic lyrics and their effects on the attitudes and mores of the boys and girls, men and women who listen to popular hip-hop and rap music.

Taylor refused to even address rape culture and its pervasive hold it has on society, including popular hip-hop and rap music. Instead, we get this paragraph:

We may not like the message and may well regard and disregard the messenger as not “one of us”. But, without question, hip-hop has changed. And no matter how much we celebrate a young (mostly) brother’s right to produce and get paid for his music, we cannot be so blind as not to recognize the resulting damage. There are women in the game tooThe carnage left by their willing participation in the now fantastical world of instant gratification is maddening. It’s us dancing in rhinestone-studded thongs talking about “if you ain’t got dough, you can’t go with the Fox b$#&h” while tricking off every ounce of our dignity for a brief ride in a Bentley coup.

Taylor’s use of the old “women are part of the problem, too” argument and her subsequent proposal for black women to “dry up” the demand to use our image in a derogatory manner is the same argument that continues to place responsibility of a black woman’s image on the black woman, not the male dominated hip-hop and rap industry that continues to use and abuse the black female image. In a nutshell, black women allow their bodies and their images to be used and abused by the industry and it’s our responsibility to take back our bodies, according to Taylor.

While that’s fine and dandy, Taylor’s argument is unrealistic as black women are a minority in the black male-dominated rap and hip-hop industry. Black women do not have the bargaining power and prestige men have in the industry. They don’t own the majority of the record labels, write the majority of the songs and direct the majority of the music videos. Even black people don’t even make up the majority of consumers of hip-hop and rap lyrics. Exactly how are black women supposed to take control of our image if we don’t even control a sizable portion of the industry?

Here’s the problem with Taylor’s argument: it shifts the blame from the male-dominated industry to black women, which is exactly what rape culture does when it comes to the prevention of rape. Her refusal to even discuss rape culture demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about rape culture and its detrimental effects on the black community. She refused to discuss how many in our community will rally around a rapist and lay the blame at the feet of the victim. She refused to discuss the objectification of women in the hip-hop industry and how it leads to the dehumanization and subjugation of women, all of which are needed in order for rape culture to take shape and which I reiterated in my post, defending Ashley Judd’s message.

It’s truly disappointing Taylor would even deduce her commentary by pointing to the women shaking their asses thongs as part of the problem with hip-hop. Yes, there are black women who perpetuate the stereotype just as there are women who perpetuate the tenants of rape culture.

The problem with that thinking is it completely ignores the male-dominated hip-hop and rap industry’s dissemination of its standards of the desired black woman. It completely ignores the fact that the hip-hop and rap industries communicate to its listeners that black women have to shake her ass in a thong in order to garner attention and respect by the male artists they idolize. It completely ignores the black male dominated industry’s promotion of our image as a gold digging, thong wearing ho as the idealized black woman. It completely ignores the negative, hypersexualized images black women and girls are bombarded with on a daily basis, thus indoctrinating them with the idea they have to act like the Video Hos in order to get respect and recognition from their brothas.

The responsibility of eradicating rape culture’s prevalence in popular hip-hop and rap songs can not be left solely to the consumers. The hip-hop and rap industry as a whole will need to re-evaluate its message they want to send to society about black men and women. In the end, hip hop and rap’s black men and boys will have to no longer accept misogyny, homophobia and rape culture to pass as entertainment.

Posted in Ashley Judd, hip-hop, rape culture, theGrio | Leave a comment